Bossland GmbH (Maker of Honorbuddy) Files New Lawsuit Against Activision Blizzard

[sitnspinlock]

Nah, this is piss-ants at work. what they are doing clearly breaches the contract they agreed upon. It's like the typical street bum who collects welfare and poverty benefits from his government for being lazy, and spends his days throwing himself in front of buses or spilling hot mcdonalds coffee on himself all day in hopes of landing himself a decent lawsuit.

[HI5]

It's easy for huge Goliath to cowardly rise his arm against small David, but David needs to have balls to throw hes stone against Goliath.

True man always fight back no matter what and I respect you for that, Bossland

[Nyarly]

I would love to have a lawyer explaining me what will be the effects if they win this.
But i find this pretty fun and i really hope they win just to prove blizzard they're not untouchable.

[DarkLinux]

I would love if Blizz would go back to banning and stop all lawsuits.... The best part about botting is the risk... If everyone did it, it would be no fun. BG would be nothing but bots... I dont see Blizz banning people anymore... And I dont see HB coming out on top

[Cloud13]

While I do support botting, widespread botting can and will ruin the game. I kinda hope that Bossland loses.

Wins for the small guy are always nice though.

[Johnnydk]

I really wish that Honorbuddy gets shut down too, the fact that most of the other bots were closed gives Bossland the ability to simply control the bot market which is not very fair and also if they lose, gold prices will go up and maybe account prices too.

[DrD]

Honorbuddy also has the best bot on the market right now, so they already control the market.

[Zoidberg]

I really wish that Honorbuddy gets shut down too, the fact that most of the other bots were closed gives Bossland the ability to simply control the bot market which is not very fair and also if they lose, gold prices will go up and maybe account prices too.

What is that kind of argument?

It's not his fault that the other bot makers didn't want to get into legal trouble with Blizzard.

[Anotherfox]

What a lot of people don't realise is that Botting is actually good for a servers economics. Botters supply the raw materials for Alchemy, Blacksmithing, Engineering, Inscription, Jewelcrafting.

As such botters are primarily responsible for cheaper potions, elixers, flasks, gems, crafted items etc. By removing botters a lot of servers auction houses have suffered a lot. Prices on my own server went for ~25g for a stack of ore to ~160g. Gems are now at ~400g for red gems.

I agree with botting to a certain extent, but people who just bot 24/7 should be banned. Its the players who should be banned, not the bot makers. A simile would be suing a Gun manufacturer because they make guns...

[Freefall552]

What a lot of people don't realise is that Botting is actually good for a servers economics. Botters supply the raw materials for Alchemy, Blacksmithing, Engineering, Inscription, Jewelcrafting.

As such botters are primarily responsible for cheaper potions, elixers, flasks, gems, crafted items etc. By removing botters a lot of servers auction houses have suffered a lot. Prices on my own server went for ~25g for a stack of ore to ~160g. Gems are now at ~400g for red gems.

I agree with botting to a certain extent, but people who just bot 24/7 should be banned. Its the players who should be banned, not the bot makers. A simile would be suing a Gun manufacturer because they make guns...

It's only a good thing if you don't farm those things yourself and sell them.

[Apoc]

If (rather, when) we win the lawsuit, it still won't make botting rampant in games. It just means we have a legal right to create said bots. There's no precedent being made about game creators and anti-cheat mechanisms. Its still up to the game company to ensure they protect against hacks, bots, etc. There's no way you can force a game company to not protect their games. We're fine playing cat and mouse with anti-cheat. We're not fine with being sued into the ground for providing a legitimate product.

[BaddyMcBad]

If (rather, when) we win the lawsuit, it still won't make botting rampant in games. It just means we have a legal right to create said bots. There's no precedent being made about game creators and anti-cheat mechanisms. Its still up to the game company to ensure they protect against hacks, bots, etc. There's no way you can force a game company to not protect their games. We're fine playing cat and mouse with anti-cheat. We're not fine with being sued into the ground for providing a legitimate product.

While botting doesn't bother me too much as it keeps prices somewhat low, I wouldn't call them "legitimate products" seeing as they're cheating the game.

[Zoidberg]

While botting doesn't bother me too much as it keeps prices somewhat low, I wouldn't call them "legitimate products" seeing as they're cheating the game.

I think by legitimate, he means that the product is not against any laws.

[ahf620]

Agreed with KuR. And it has also been stated that this is not just against bots, but any third party software. The glider case (and the honorbuddy case) can be brought up in courts as evidence for future cases against third party software.

Germany's legal system is based on Roman law not Civil law, legal precedents have no effect in German courts.

And as for the issue itself, I'd really like to see how it'd turn out. Interesting Indeed.

[cyshadow]

I agree with Apoc. The product does not break any laws and thus the makers should not be penalized for giving the masses the ability to use them. I mean c'mon, we've all been cheating since we were in diapers. Who DIDN'T use a Game-Shark, Game-Genie, or Pro-action replay?